- 15 Victoros Ougko St., Metaxourgio
- thalis@higgs3.org
- 211 411 6300
Thalis service is being implemented from HIGGS, with the support of the Scientific Committee from members of the university community.
Methodology & Criteria
Evaluation Process
Civil Society Organisations
The increased participation of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in important social issues in Greece, such as human rights, the fight against poverty and the promotion of cultural heritage, is an important phenomenon. However, the lack of transparency, accountability and evaluation mechanisms often casts doubt on the effectiveness and real impact of CSOs’ action.
The THALIS II evaluation methodology was developed after a detailed analysis of CSOs’ evaluations in foreign countries and the adaptation of these elements to the Greek society, as well as the implementation of three evaluation cycles in the past (2012-2015 & 2018-2021)
Basic methodological assumptions & choices
The evaluation focuses on a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria and results in a star rating system for each organisation. Each organisation will receive a number of stars from one (1) (lowest possible performance) to five (5) (highest possible performance). The evaluation process focuses both on individual data of each organisation and on comparative data based on the field of activity of each CSO.
Definition of CSOs for the purposes of the evaluation - Eligibility of Participation
- CSOs with a legal structure: Urban Non-Profit Companies, Unions/Associations with a public benefit project
- CSOs that have completed at least two (2) financial years and have organisational autonomy and administrative structures
- CSOs that have beneficiaries (non-members)
- CSOs whose activity refers to a geographical scale larger than the boundaries of the neighborhood
If the organisation is part of an international network, the information to be filled in the questionnaire should relate only to the organisation’s activity in Greece.
Basic methodological assumptions & choices
The evaluation focuses on a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria and results in a star rating system for each organisation. Each organisation will receive a number of stars from one (1) (lowest possible performance) to five (5) (highest possible performance). The evaluation process focuses both on individual data of each organisation and on comparative data based on the field of activity of each CSO.
Definition of CSOs for the purposes of the evaluation - Eligibility of Participation
- CSOs with a legal structure: Urban Non-Profit Companies, Unions/Associations with a public benefit project
- CSOs that have completed at least two (2) financial years and have organisational autonomy and administrative structures
- CSOs that have beneficiaries (non-members)
- CSOs whose activity refers to a geographical scale larger than the boundaries of the neighborhood
If the organisation is part of an international network, the information to be filled in the questionnaire should relate only to the organisation’s activity in Greece.
Overall, each organisation's final score will be the weighted sum of the scores in three (3) categories of criteria:
01
Effectiveness
Suggested Importance: 45%
02
Internal Organisation
Suggested Importance: 20%
03
Transparency
Suggested Importance: 35%
Each group of criteria has a maximum score of one hundred (100) while the total final sum of each organisation will be given on a scale of 1-100
The score will determine how many stars each organisation will receive:
Stars:
5/5
Total Score
≥ 81
Stars:
4/5
Total Score
61 – 80
Stars:
3/5
Total Score
41 – 60
Stars:
2/5
Total Score
21 – 40
Stars:
1/5
Total Score
≤ 20
Criteria Group Α
Effectiveness
Criteria Group A refers to the effectiveness of each CSO during the last three (3) years. It is noted that in the case of special factors that alter the actual image of an CSO, data from up to the last five (5) years may be requested and used. It is recalled that the concept of “effectiveness” in this survey does not refer to qualitative data but exclusively to quantitative data. The existing disadvantage resulting from this choice is partially remedied by the fact that the evaluation is sectoral (the ratings refer each time to the CSOs belonging to a specific sector). The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
Criteria Group Β
Internal Organisation
Criteria Group B refers to the organisational structures of each CSO as well as its organisational performance over the last three (3) years. Ιn case of special factors that alter the actual image of a CSO, data from up to five (5) years ago may be requested and used. The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
Criteria Group C
Transparency
CriteriaGroup C refers to the level of transparency that characterizes the operation of each CSO.
The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
Evaluation Process
- Α. Briefing and Preparation
During this stage, organisations are informed about the final assessment process and are offered time for any improvements on their questionnaire.
- Β. Conducting Interviews/ Data Collection
During this stage the members of the research team inform via a phone call and via email specific CSOs of their intention to include them in the evaluation process. [Please note that each organization will receive up to two (2) relevant notices].
If the request is accepted, the relevant platform link is sent to the organisation and:
If the CSO was not included in the 1st or 2nd evaluation (THALIS I & THALIS II), a meeting/interview date is set at the organisation’s offices where any questions are resolved and the completed questionnaire and relevant accompanying documents are collected.
If the CSO was included in the 1st evaluation (THALIS I) then access is given to the person who will be responsible for this organisation.
- C. Data Processing and Creation of Sectoral Credibility Indexes
During this last stage, the research team will proceed with the processing of the collected data and the creation of the Sectoral Credibility Indexes, which will include all the organisations that were notified of their participation in the evaluation process. Both the Sectoral Credibility Indexes and the detailed data on the results of the evaluation process will be presented at a relevant event which will be organised and will be permanently available through the platform that will be created.
Explanatory table of categorisation of star numbers
Stars:
5/5
Total Score
≥ 81
Description
Excellent
Exceeds sector average / performs better than average in most domains. Best practices are used that could be disseminated in the field.
Stars:
4/5
Total Score
61 – 80
Description
Very good
It exceeds the average level in several domains. A few best practices are used that could be disseminated across the field.
Stars:
3/5
Total Score
41 – 60
Description
Good
Reaches the sector average / performs as efficiently or more efficiently than the average.
Stars:
2/5
Total Score
21 – 40
Description
Requires improvements
It is close to the sector average / operates less efficiently than average.
Stars:
1/5
Total Score
≤ 20
Description
Low performance
Fails to approach sector average / performs significantly less efficiently than average.